Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

I've read the thread thanks. For some reason you don't think anyone that claims they were burgled should ever be arrested, or maybe it's because they are Irish travellers or Oh god no gypsies.

That is a complete distortion of what he has said.

He's made it clear that he thinks travellers are much worse than gypsies.

__________________"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
***********************************************
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." - Saul Bellow

There is still the factor of the missing second man (perhaps even more...?).

If this had happened in the USA this second person would be charged with felony murder, where a person dies as a result of the felony.

<snip>

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Are you sure? Even when the person killed is one of the gang, not a victim of the gang?

Originally Posted by 3point14

As I understand it, anyone in commission of a felony, any felony at all, during which someone, be it perpetrator or victim or innocent bystander, dies, is subject to a murder charge.

Someone may be along in a minute to correct me.

Originally Posted by Elagabalus

Yes. GangmemberA and GangmemberB went into pensioners house with the intention to burgle. Had GangmemberA and GangmemberB not done that no one would have died so whomever is left standing (let's say GangmemberB) he will be charged with murder.

Like anything involving the laws in the U.S. Nothing is simple.

The answer is ... it depends.

First off, of course, it depends on what state has jurisdiction over the crime.

There are two schools of thought concerning whose actions can cause the defendant to be guilty of felony murder. Jurisdictions that hold to the agency theory admit only deaths caused by the agents of the crime. Jurisdictions that use the proximate cause theory include any death, even if caused by a bystander or the police, provided that it meets one of several proximate cause tests to determine if the chain of events between the offence and the death was short enough to have legally caused the death.[3]

Nearly all the states in the U.S. have some form of a felony murder statute. Most tend to be largely of the "agency" approach. Some are more toward the "proximate cause" theory. With varying levels of commitment to the idea.

Arizona is perhaps the most clear-cut in its adoption of proximate cause. Their statute is quite explicit.

Quote:

The statute102 provides, in relevant part, that a person commits first degree murder if:

A. 2 Acting either alone or with one or more other persons the person commits or attempts to commit [enumerated felonies]103 and in the course of and in furtherance or immediate flight from the offense, the person or another person causes the death of any person.

Under this jurisdiction the burglar who fled would most definitely be guilty of felony murder.

From it you will see that, as tends to be true of many legal issues, there is nothing simple or straightforward about the application or interpretation of these laws in many states. And certainly nothing consistent across the various states.

__________________"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
***********************************************
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." - Saul Bellow

I think it is not a bad law, because it takes away the onus of having to prove which one of the gang of criminals was responsible for the death, bearing in mind most crimes do not have eyewitnesses and the victim is dead.

No offence, but that just sounds like cost cutting and laziness beating hard work finding the right bad dude

__________________I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

I think it is not a bad law, because it takes away the onus of having to prove which one of the gang of criminals was responsible for the death, bearing in mind most crimes do not have eyewitnesses and the victim is dead.

In fact, to me, it almost goes against the onus on the prosecution to prove guilt, which I thought was law

__________________I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

In fact, to me, it almost goes against the onus on the prosecution to prove guilt, which I thought was law

I tend to agree with you, but what it seems to do is remove the chance of nobody being found guilty of the actual murder simply because the precise culprit within the group can't be clearly identified.

__________________"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut

I tend to agree with you, but what it seems to do is remove the chance of nobody being found guilty of the actual murder simply because the precise culprit within the group can't be clearly identified.

Which is all very well when "the gang" has done the killing. If a gang member is killed in self-defence it seems less reasonable.

__________________OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcarehttp://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

In that case, three teenagers aged 15,18 and 19, Cook, Redfearn and Woodruff were shot dead by another young fellow when he came across them intruding in his home for the purpose of burglary. The driver of the getaway car - who sped off and left her dead pals behind (rather like in this case) and apparent ringleader was someone called Elizabeth Rodriguez.

Quote:

Wagoner County Assistant District Attorney Jack Thorpe said a few days after the shooting that Rodriguez would be charged with three counts of first-degree murder and two counts of burglary for her part in the crime.

The district attorney’s office deemed the shooting justifiable. Thorpe said Zach Peters was acting in self-defense when he pulled the trigger, killing the three intruders.

It doesn't look like the trial has finished yet...(adjourned?)

It's a good parallel to this crime in the UK. It'd be a shame if the burglar who sped off in the van just gets charged with burglary and is out in four years.

Rodriguez will likely get life without parole.

__________________If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb

Which is all very well when "the gang" has done the killing. If a gang member is killed in self-defence it seems less reasonable.

Yes; the gang being individually liable for an act committed by any of them is understandable to some extent. In English law, this is known as "joint enterprise' or 'common purpose'. I don't think it ever extends to the degree that some US states allow for for felony murder (thanks to quadraginta for the background on that), and there have been some notable cases where it was used (the Derek Bentley case probably being the best-known).

__________________The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232Ezekiel 23:20

I think it is not a bad law, because it takes away the onus of having to prove which one of the gang of criminals was responsible for the death, bearing in mind most crimes do not have eyewitnesses and the victim is dead.

It certainly used to be the case in England & Wales that if one member of a gang killed anyone other than another gang member, all the gang members would be charged with murder under the concept of "common purpose" or "joint enterprise." It was never automatic, though, and all might not be charged if the killer used a weapon the others could reasonably claim they were unaware of.

ETA: As Zooterkin notes, one of the most infamous prosecutions under this concept was the now-pardoned Derek Bentley. There have certainly been more recent examples, but in 2016 the Supreme Court said the law had been misinterpreted for 30 years, resulting in perhaps "hundreds" of unsafe convictions.

It certainly used to be the case in England & Wales that if one member of a gang killed anyone other than another gang member, all the gang members would be charged with murder under the concept of "common purpose." It was never automatic, though, and all might not be charged if the killer used a weapons the others could reasonably claim they were unaware of.

Which would seem appropriate. I cod see that if gang members pressured someone into, say an armed robbery and they were killed by the victim in self defence, then I could see the US approach might make sense - it still seems a bit of a stretch to murder as opposed to manslaughter, though.

__________________OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcarehttp://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

First off, of course, it depends on what state has jurisdiction over the crime.

There are two theories of responsibility which may be employed in a felony murder statute. Wiki provides a fairly simple basic explanation;
Nearly all the states in the U.S. have some form of a felony murder statute. Most tend to be largely of the "agency" approach. Some are more toward the "proximate cause" theory. With varying levels of commitment to the idea.

Arizona is perhaps the most clear-cut in its adoption of proximate cause. Their statute is quite explicit.
Under this jurisdiction the burglar who fled would most definitely be guilty of felony murder.

From it you will see that, as tends to be true of many legal issues, there is nothing simple or straightforward about the application or interpretation of these laws in many states. And certainly nothing consistent across the various states.

Thanks for the additional info. I was more or less shooting from the hip.

Quote:

In the introduction to this article we were introduced to the facts of the Sophophone case ... Sophophone was caught by police and sat in handcuffs in the back of a police car while one of his accomplices, Sysoumphone, resisting arrest, shot at the arresting officer. The police officer returned fire and shot and killed Sysoumphone.

The traveller who knew Vincent told MailOnline: 'I know that Henry Vincent would have killed the pensioner first if he could have got away with it, but they will act like he's the victim in all of this,' he said.

Quote:

They won't get over a death of one of their own and they won't rest until they get their revenge... And when I say revenge, I mean they'll go armed with whatever they've got – guns, knives, anything that they can lay their hands on.'

Yep, that sounds like our poor hounded traveller community all right.

Beggars belief that the the police allow those pikeys to set up a shrine on the fence outside the crime scene (and by crime I mean burglary). That's part of the reason why they cause so much trouble in the civilised community - the police will run a mile rather than challenge their behaviour.

Beggars belief that the the police allow those pikeys to set up a shrine on the fence outside the crime scene (and by crime I mean burglary). That's part of the reason why they cause so much trouble in the civilised community - the police will run a mile rather than challenge their behaviour.

Pushing it to see the old dude move back into his house for long I think

It's got only a matter of time till the family comes a knocking, or a molotov written all over it

__________________I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

__________________I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Beaten to it. They can find resource to stand in the street outside an embassy for years, and are able to spend £5 million and several hundred man years effort investigating people listening to celebrities' voice messages, so I would hope they can spare a couple of cops to protect the life on an elderly couple targeted by scumbags.

Nearly all the states in the U.S. have some form of a felony murder statute. Most tend to be largely of the "agency" approach. Some are more toward the "proximate cause" theory. With varying levels of commitment to the idea.

Arizona is perhaps the most clear-cut in its adoption of proximate cause. Their statute is quite explicit.

Under this jurisdiction the burglar who fled would most definitely be guilty of felony murder.

After police killed a burglary suspect in a shootout, the officer was not charged - instead a teenage boy who did not fire the gun has been found guilty of his murder. How do accomplice liability laws work?

__________________"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

Beggars belief that the the police allow those pikeys to set up a shrine on the fence outside the crime scene (and by crime I mean burglary). That's part of the reason why they cause so much trouble in the civilised community - the police will run a mile rather than challenge their behaviour.

Please don't use that term. It is really offensive.

__________________If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb

I dunno, if you knowingly assist an illegal activity and something bad happens, then you are held responsible. Seems reasonable.

I notice the bbc used a bleeding heart example of: "For example, if a victim has a heart attack and dies while being robbed, the perpetrator can be charged with murder even if he had no intent to kill."
So? If you commit a crime and someone dies who probably otherwise wouldn't have, you get held responsible. That's fair.

One take on the word's origins is that it was coined from the word 'pike', meaning road, because they used to camp beside the highway. I don't personally buy that explanation and prefer the alternative; that 'pikey' derives from pikka, a 13th/14th century verb meaning 'to steal'. We had their measure, even then.

Agreed, but if a group is making a shrine for a thief and potential killer I tend to be very not supportive of the group specifically doing it.

The dead burglar who met his ignominious end behaved disgracefully in life, but ultimately he is still someone's dad, son, brother, nephew, cousin, mate and of course they are entitled to express their condolences by leaving flowers, etc. Why the tabloids want to photograph it is simply to whip up base emotions in people like Baron.

There really is no need for racist language.

__________________If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb

I dunno, if you knowingly assist an illegal activity and something bad happens, then you are held responsible. Seems reasonable.

I notice the bbc used a bleeding heart example of: "For example, if a victim has a heart attack and dies while being robbed, the perpetrator can be charged with murder even if he had no intent to kill."
So? If you commit a crime and someone dies who probably otherwise wouldn't have, you get held responsible. That's fair.

In your example that's fair enough. But a cop shooting a burglar and the accomplice being found guilty of murder? That's taking it too far. Would a shoplifter be guilty of murder if his mate got shot by the police, or was stabbed by the store owner? Would a passenger be guilty of murder if the cop shot the driver for speeding off after a traffic stop? Murder as in wilfully causing a death or being reckless to whether death results is fine, but charging someone with murder just because something bad happened is ridiculous.

The dead burglar who met his ignominious end behaved disgracefully in life, but ultimately he is still someone's dad, son, brother, nephew, cousin, mate and of course they are entitled to express their condolences by leaving flowers, etc. Why the tabloids want to photograph it is simply to whip up base emotions in people like Baron.

There really is no need for racist language.

It's not racist at all. I use 'pikeys' to refer to Irish travellers. Not all Irish people, not Roma travellers, not Romanians, just Irish travellers. And it's a mild term, because they should be called out for what they are; scum.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.